there is some assumption connecting godel's mathematical proof with human consciousness. something like a characterization of how humans do math which is not in fact how humans do math.
i dont know how to prove to you humans dont do math in the idealized way except by various examples. i dont have any evidence distinguishing the existence of a idealized cognitive unit capable of math, among other things from a brain made of meat that happens to be able to write papers and feel math-ish. if there is no way to distinguish it, even in principle, then i assume the latter.
Read section 2.4. If you make the assumption that you can add independent, extrinsic axioms to a set-theoretic universe to access more useful mathematics, you presuppose the existence of real, metaphysical mathematical objects and structures. The proof that for any existing mathematical structure/object, there is a well-founded set-theoretic universe that is isomorphic to that. Section 2.4.2 Contains the proof. Point out the error.
First, it never had consciousness. It is generating random strings. It is not formulating the set-theoretic universe or making substantive claims about it or its structure: it is only enumerating every predicate with no discerning between what is true and what isn't. It doesn't discover anything: it just spits out random set-theoretic sentences, regardless of their validity. A random string generator coming up with the works of Shakespeare doesn't make that random string generator a conscious artist.
Second, if it takes an infinite amount of time, you don't get to make this claim. You fundamentally misunderstand what the concept of infinity is.
the main reason is the general failure of this paradigm to explain human behavior.
you think you have a reason for doing something, but its retroactively fitted.
your consciousness can be dramatically altered by physical effect.
you cut a brain in half, and you get two math-capable consciousnesses.
you already presuppose your conventional assumption of consciousness. if computers outperform mathematicians at mathematical research, would you conclude they are necessarily conscious?
It means that they can access metaphysical objects and structures through their mathematical discovery of them. This is explicitly not an empiricist endeavor. If consciousness can generate knowledge that is provably true with no connection to any material reality and the knowledge generated is strictly metaphysical, then the process of the creation of knowledge must be metaphysical.
It is a well-defined limit of empiricism (defined by empiricists themselves) that empirical methods and material investigations cannot answer metaphysical questions. So, when a mathematician poses a metaphysical question and then consciously proves an answer to that question, there is not a material basis behind the process. Ergo, consciousness must be metaphysical.
okay. so if computers start outperforming humans at mathematical research, then you would consider them as conscious. but since you think their physicality makes it necessarily impossible, you think it will never happen.
again, natural experiment. give it thirty years. im optimistic.
That was not his project. He leans on Husserl to do that. And you have no reason to say this. Your three listed reasons have no link to a reason why consciousness being metaphysical is not true. You can reverse causality on physical effect because if conscious subjectivity is metaphysical, so must the unconscious actions that produce it. That also takes care of the "reason for doing something retroactively given" argument. And the 3rd is not a well-founded or articulated premise. Though consciousness may not function the same way with a split brain, there is no empirical basis to claim that it is two consciousnesses. Once again, if you wish to make these claims as empirical claims, you have to provide a method of falsifiability.
FOR YOU TO MAKE ANY CLAIMS WHILE SAYING EMPIRICISM IS THE ONLY WAY TO ACCESS KNOWLEDGE, YOU MUST HAVE A FALSIFIABILITY CRITERION FOR EVERY CLAIM THAT IS TESTABLE. THAT IS HOW SCIENCE AND EMPIRICISM WORKS. YOUR CLAIMS ARE NOT WELL-FOUNDED UNDER EMPIRICISM IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE THIS.
They do not and they cannot because it has been proven consciousness is metaphysical and inaccessible to computers.
No. I never said mathematics alone defines consciousness. You're really awful at reading and comprehending the most basic things. The fact that mathematical reasoning is a process of consciousness and the fact that mathematical reasoning accesses the metaphysical means that consciousness has access to the metaphysical and must therefore be as such. I don't get how it's so hard to make a counter-argument to this and justify it. I guess I'm just not a complete fucking moron so I'll never be able to understand someone as goddamn stupid and moronic as you
Hbotz, you are incredibly dumb. Why don't you read section 2.4? Why do you refuse to educate yourself? Is it because you have to argue in bad faith? Or are you actually so braindead you believe the shit you're spouting is a legitimate argument?
No, I'm not going to make any claims about 2 and 3 because the terms are not well defined. It's also completely fucking irrelevant. How about you deal with this first:
why are you afraid of this? you can formulate some sort of turing test argument where computers start submitting papers to journals under human names and we measure if they are better at getting published. or any other metric you want.